[farleykr]

> We have a duty to be an objective and trusted provider of information that serves all of our users globally. When we come to work, our goal is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful. That supersedes everything else and I expect us to act with a focus that reflects that.

Sometimes I really wonder if there is a total lack of self awareness or if these things are phrased in obligatory ways because of legal concerns.

Maybe the nature of working for a company is that you need to align yourself with the company's mission and methods. But I can't see how objectivity is really in play here. Surely Sundar Pichal can see that he's just putting his own truth claims over those of the employees?

Why not just say that Google has a certain mission and methods and that if you're going to work at Google you need to get on board instead of phrasing in a way that makes it seem like Google is completely neutral or above reproach as an entity because of their alleged stature as objective and trusted?

[slumberlust]

> Why not just say that Google has a certain mission and methods and that if you're going to work at Google you need to get on board

That's exactly what the last paragraph does, no?

[farleykr]

You're not wrong.

I'm taking issue with the fact that he's presenting Google and its mission as something objective and above reproach. By doing so he's going above and beyond asking people to align themselves with Google's mission and methods and asking them to assent to something that he seems to take for granted as transcendent.

It's religious language and behavior and it creeps me out.

[tonypags]

It seems like your take on this statement from Google is highly subjective.

[tonypags]

> the nature of working for a company is that you need to align yourself with the company's mission and methods

This is correct for any business. If you ran a business, would you tolerate any employee who attempts to subvert your products and revenue?

[farleykr]

I'm not taking issue with him expecting employees to get in line with the mission and methods. I'm saying he should be more frank and transparent about the fact that this is what he's doing instead of acting like Google as an entity is objective and impartial.

[tonypags]

Reading into these statements is a mistake. It's full of soft language, which in context can be twisted to fit anyone's perception. I'm not defending Google; I am defending the termination of employees that have obviously prioritized the wrong things in their careers, or did not have the mentorship available to guide them to better ways of expressing themselves other than corporate sabotage.

Also you're adding that word impartial as if they used it, but they didn't. Impartiality infers some personal lack of favoritism. A private company can obviously play favorites with whatever they think will make them more money as part of their mission.

Politics do not belong in the work place or at the dinner table. They belong in your head and to be cast on your annual voter ballot, and if you feel like expressing yourself: penned in letters/tweeted to your various representatives, and nowhere else. I don't mind it being on socials as long as there's a way to filter it out of my feed.

People used to say it a lot: never talk about politics or religion unless you want to make enemies out of your friends/family. It's still good advice, even if no one is listening. Be the change you want to see in the world (Nelson Mandela). If you want to be objective, start from there, don't start in your boss' boss' boss' boss' office.